Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
09/07/2026 3:23 pm
TL;DR: Managing backup and recovery as Infrastructure as Code can reduce configuration drift, improve reproducibility, and make protection rules visible in version-controlled workflows, according to Commvault. For cloud teams, the real shift is governance: backup state becomes reviewable, enforceable, and easier to align with the rest of the stack.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Commvault: Managing backup and recovery as Infrastructure as Code
By the numbers:
- 91% of former employee tokens remain active after offboarding, leaving organisations vulnerable to potential security breaches.
- 50% of organisations are onboarding new vaults without proper security approval, introducing vulnerabilities and misconfigurations from the outset.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams manage backup policies in Infrastructure as Code environments?
A: They should define backup accounts, policies, retention settings, and protection rules in code so the same change-control process governs both infrastructure and recovery.
Q: Why does manual backup configuration create governance risk in cloud environments?
A: Manual configuration separates recovery controls from the rest of the infrastructure lifecycle, which makes drift, inconsistent coverage, and hidden exceptions more likely.
Q: What breaks when tag-based protection is not governed carefully?
A: Automated protection can miss resources, overprotect the wrong ones, or apply policies inconsistently if tags are missing or inaccurate.
Practitioner guidance
- Version-control backup policy alongside infrastructure code Store account connections, policy definitions, retention settings, and protection rules in the same repository and approval workflow as Terraform-managed infrastructure.
- Define tag governance before enabling auto-protection Standardise which tags trigger protection, who can assign them, and how tag drift is validated across AWS accounts.
- Review IAM trust paths used by backup automation Inspect the AWS roles and permissions that connect accounts to the backup platform, then confirm the scope matches least privilege and account segmentation.
What's in the full article
Commvault's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step Terraform provider setup for AWS and Clumio integration, including the working files needed to initialise the environment.
- Example policy definitions for different recovery point objectives and retention tiers across AWS resource types.
- Tag-based protection configuration for existing and future resources, including how protection groups scale for S3 bucket sets.
- The exact Terraform workflow for planning, applying, and reapplying backup state across accounts.
👉 Read Commvault's analysis of backup policy as code for AWS environments →
AWS backup policy as code: what it means for cloud teams?
Explore further
09/07/2026 3:41 pm
Backup policy drift is an identity governance problem as much as a data protection problem. When infrastructure is declarative but recovery policy is manual, the organisation creates two control planes that do not mature at the same pace. That split undermines reviewability, change traceability, and rollback confidence, which are core governance requirements in cloud programmes. The practical conclusion is that backup state should be subject to the same approval and version-control discipline as infrastructure state.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own backup policy when IAM roles and account connections are part of the setup?
A: Ownership should be shared across platform, security, and identity teams because the control depends on both recovery design and access design. The IAM roles and trust relationships behind automation need the same scrutiny as any privileged access path, especially in multi-account AWS estates.
👉 Read our full editorial: Backup policy as code reduces drift in AWS data protection
